‘Advertising doesn’t sell things; all advertising does is change the way people think or feel’. (Jeremy Bullmore) Evaluate this statement with reference to critical theories (past and present).
In today’s society we are bombarded with advertisements- when we watch the television, read a magazine, log on to the Internet, see billboards… the list goes on and on. It is a huge part of modern culture and companies or corporations spend a great deal of money producing them; some seemingly spending more on advertising than on actually researching their product. Rather shockingly ‘A York university study revealed that pharmaceutical companies spend twice as much on advertising as they do on research.’ (Random History, 2011)
Being a hugely expanded market and with more money spent on it’s development, advertising has had to become more creative and ingenious in order to get noticed and promote a product; why would an audience pay attention to something they have seen countless times before? Thus, the advertising field has developed with the times and works hard to keep audiences engaged. According to Remi Babinet, founder and chairman, BETC Euro RSCG, ‘for an advertiser and his agency, there are two ways of getting noticed: one is to jostle and shove, to be persistent, even unsubtle and invasive. The advertiser who takes this path will be quickly deemed tiresome, to be avoided at all costs’. (Eliza Williams, 2010)
A lot of advertising companies talk freely about how interesting their work has become but whether they are actually contributing to sale numbers is a much more difficult and complex question.
One of the more interesting points surrounding the debate on the effectiveness of adverts selling ability, could be the opinion of the audience. Robert Heath (2001) thinks that ‘even though we watch it, hear it and see it every day, all of us feel instinctively that it is we who make the decisions, and that advertising contributes little’.
People like to agree with Bullmore, thinking humans are rational creatures who are not vulnerable to such easy persuasion. How can an advert really make us buy something when there are so many and seemingly so little time spent paying attention to them? It is hard to believe they can influence someone to actually spend money on a product. Human nature would suggest we just give adverts enough of our attention to create an opinion or feeling i.e. ‘change the way people think or feel’.
However, research has questioned if we really need to pay attention to be influenced. ‘Langmaid & Gordon (1998) used hypnotism to explore the idea that we absorb far more from advertising than we think we do.’ (Robert Heath 2011) They conducted a simple experiment that involved them interviewing volunteers to find out how much they could remember about some advertising campaigns. They were then asked the same questions while in a hypnotic trance. Interestingly they discovered that although most of the volunteers could not recall much about an advert while conscious, they could relate almost every detail while they were being hypnotised.
‘It seems, then that the way advertising works is not so transparent after all. Advertising can work at a non-conscious level: it does have some sort of hidden power which enables it to influence us without our realising it.’ (Robert Heath 2011)
This would then strongly suggest that we would prefer certain brands as we subconsciously remember their adverts. We are drawn to what is familiar and because it has been proven a person recalls the advert, they will recall the brand and product too. So, if we follow this line of thinking advertising can work without a person being conscious of its effects, and it can persuade an audience to buy a product without them even realising it.
Possibly the most talked about effect adverts have on audiences comes in the form of the portrayal of women, and the effect these have on female viewers.
It is easily argued that many beauty products seem to sell an idea of what beauty is rather than a product.
In ‘Ways of Seeing’, John Berger talks about glamour and how adverts offer the chance to transform oneself, to become enviable and therefore glamorous. Adverts, or ‘publicity’ persuade us we can transform ourselves by buying a product, therefore becoming envied and ‘the state of being envied is what constitutes glamour. And publicity is in the process of manufacturing glamour.’ (John Berger 1972)
This promise of a glamorous transformation is usually an empty one and
Beauty adverts have often blurred the line between promising an aspirational dream and creating a fiction. An example that actually hit the headlines came in the form of an advert by cosmetics company, Rimmel London.
(See Rimmel Advert) This advert for a new mascara was banned in the later months of 2010 for ‘false advertisement’ by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ‘1-2-3 Looks Mascara’ TV commercial and print-based ad gave the impression that using this product would achieve the effect of false eyelashes, without the need to actually wear them. However to ‘show this effect in action’ they actually used a model wearing false lash inserts, with only a tiny line in the ad informing the viewer of this. Thus, the advert led viewers to believe they too could get fuller, longer lashes and that this would make them look as beautiful and glamorous as the model.
This is just one example of unattainable or a false beauty in advertising. Disturbingly adverts show images of female beauty that is just totally unachievable to the huge majority of women. Even though women in adverts reflect how a tiny majority of women look, or could look, it has become what society deems sexy and attractive. Women, whether they buy the product or not, judge themselves by the beauty industries standards thanks to the adverts they use to promote their products.
Another way to debate Jeremy Bullmore’s statement is the fact that it could be argued adverts reflect society rather than influence it. Antonio Damasio, (1994) explored how we make decisions and found that there is a link between emotions and decision-making. We construct what he calls ‘somatic markers’.
He said that ‘Somatic markers are….feelings generated from secondary emotions...[which] have been connected, by learning, to predicted future outcomes. When a negative somatic marker is juxtaposed to a particular future outcome the combination acts as an alarm bell. When a positive somatic marker is juxtaposed instead, it becomes a beacon of incentive.’ (Robert Heath 2011)
Damasio also thinks we use these somatic markers when we make decisions concerning brand choices. For example, it has become well known that the Japanese are ahead when it comes to creating new technology, so many people will have a marker that tells them Japanese produced products are going to be very cutting-edge. Advertisers are aware of this marker and can use it to their advantage- creating adverts that show, or suggest Japanese development and manufacturing. This will hopefully make their product appear modern and state-of-the-art.
This shows adverts are not changing what we think or feel, but are relying on what thoughts and feelings are already there.
Although, some theorists disagree with this (thus, agreeing with Bullmore) and believe adverts do have an effect on what we are thinking and feeling without us realising.
Jean Kilbourne is a feminist author, speaker, and filmmaker. She thinks ads tap into our existing emotions and then change our reaction. We think we are responding to natural human desires, but they are just being used by adverts. She states that ‘the problem with advertising isn’t that it creates artificial needs, but that it exploits our very real and human desires.’ (New International 2006) 
(See BMW advert) Jean Kilbourne mentions this BMW advert in her article and believes it reflects how adverts have changed the way we view relationships.
It is becoming common knowledge that adverts subliminally tell us ‘buy this product and you will be loved’. We yearn to be more loved and to have perfect relationships and adverts tell us better relationships can be had via a product.
However, Kilbourne believes that adverts actually now take this further and show how you can have a better relationship with the product itself. ‘Buy this product and it will love you.’
The advert shows an attractive couple in bed and it appears as though they are making love. However, it seems this woman is not perfect or attractive enough as there is a magazine spread out over her face, showing a photo of the BMW car. The tagline reads: ‘The Ultimate Attraction’. The man is gazing passionately at this double-page photo and as Jean Kilbourne states, this advert seems to be telling the viewer that ‘in the world of advertising, lovers are things and things are lovers, and that ‘after all, it is easier to love a product than a person.’ (New International, 2006)
Adverts seem to be selling a feeling, rather than a product. They are changing how we view products and could actually be changing how the world is feeling and thinking- promoting and fueling rampant commercialism and a consumerist society.
Overall I feel there are strong arguments both for, and against Jeremy Bullmore’s statement; advertising is one of the subjects that can throw up big debates, with people having such widely different views concerning its effects on people and society. I understand what Bullmore is trying to say, but I feel I have to disagree with him; if adverts weren’t created to sell, what is their purpose? Why then is it such a big business? Wouldn’t they just become works of art?
It does remain somewhat an enigma exactly how adverts manage to sell, but we cannot deny that they must have some effect upon us. Big brands and corporations spend a lot of money on advertising and are very effective at selling their goods. Often the most successful companies are spending the most on advertising, so surely there must be some link?
Ultimately to me an advert is an image (whether moving, or printed), and all images carry a set of signs and codes that an audience has to decode. The way an audience interprets an image is influenced by the world around them- culture and society play a large part. I go back to a previous point I made in saying that it could be argued adverts reflect society rather than influence it. To me, this suggests advertisers, instead of changing what we think or feel, are relying on what is already there in order to connect with us and at a basic level just sell their product.
Bibliography
Plessis, Erik Du. (2005) The Advertised Mind, Millward Brown and Kogan Page Limited, London.
Williams, Eliza. (2010) This is Advertising, Laurence King Publishing Ltd, London.
Berger, John. (1972) Ways of Seeing, Penguin Books Ltd, London
Heath, Robert. (2001) The Hidden Power of Advertising, Admap Publications, Oxfordshire.
Damasio, Antonio R. (1994) Descartes’ Error, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York.
Random History. 2011. http://facts.randomhistory.com/interesting-facts-about-advertising.html (accessed January 2012)
Kilbourne, Jean. (2006) Jesus is a Brand of Jeans, The New International. Available at: http://www.newint.org/features/2006/09/01/culture/ (accessed January 2012)
Poulter, Sean. 2010. Georgia May Jagger gets lashed: Rimmel mascara commercial banned for false advertising, The Dail Mail. (last updated 24th November 2010. Available at : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1332602/Georgia-May-Jagger-gets-lashed-Rimmel-mascara-commercial-banned-false-advertising.html (Accessed January 2012)
New International, 2006. Available at: http://www.newint.org/features/2006/09/01/culture2.jpg (Accesssed December 2011)
Amazing Advertising, 2010. (last updated November 17 2010) Available at: http://infinit.posterous.com/top-100-advertising-campaigns-of-the-century (Accessed December 2011)
